I tried the 4 player standard, what a mess...

[Raven Crowking]

I wasn't quoting.

Obviously. The question is, can you support your position from the RAW, or are you defending a house rule?

I think you are disagreeing with enough of what I am actually saying so there is no need to create strawmen. You must be unaware of what an obviously poor debate tactic that is.

Ad Hominem, I suppose, is something you prefer?

Again, I suggest that this isn't a straw man, but a rational extension of your point as first presented. In the encounter described, the encounter is difficult as described, but the PCs have options for dealing with the encounter that level the field. It is, borrowing from the DMG, one of those encounters that is difficult unless handled properly. I am unaware that the DMG suggests raising the EL for such encounters. Perhaps this is something in 3.5 that wasn't in 3.0?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why do I feel that you type "standard" with the same feeling that I do when I type "botulism"?

Because you don't like my conclusions, and therefore don't like the reasoning from which they arise?

I do think that CR is ML gussied up. However, I do not think that CR is a better tool than ML. Quite the opposite.

(1) ML is calculated by an explicit formula, making it far easier to determine appropriate ML and XP for new or unusual monsters.

(2) Determining XP from ML requires less math than doing so using CR/EL.

(3) XP values in the ML system are more granular, making it easier to adjust actual reward.

(4) The ML system is far easier to use in games that deviate from the norm than the CR/EL system.

 

[Shazman]

I'm blessed to have large numbers of game playing friends... I've run games for three decades, you meet a few people in that time. My games have always had a minimum of 6 players in them, and I've run games for so long that I've always designed encounters myself by estimating the power level the party can handle and eyeballing the monsters. I've not ever run a 4 player D&D session using the rules system for balancing encounters, until last night that is. I started a new game with two couples who are friends of mine, specifically so that I could experience the game rules for 3.0 played out as they were written... for 4 players with one character of each type (wiz, fighter, cleric, thief).

I ran them in the Dungeon Classics Module #2 The Lost Vault of Tzathzar Rho. The first encounter in that module, which is specifically written for 1st level characters, is with an Orgre... CR 2 creature. According to the DMG 3.0 this is supposed to be a scaled encounter that 4 1st level players will have a hard time with, but can overcome. The party consisted of a Thief, a Ranger, a Diviner, and a Druid. They were annihilated. We ran the same encounter 3 times and they varied thier tactics but the end result was always the same, the gory death of the entire party and a modestly wounded Ogre.

I then suggested that since I run a roleplay heavy game, and that is what the players came prepared for, I would allow them to restructure the characters and toughen them up... surely that is the problem we were facing, underpowered PCs. So we ran it one last time with a Thief, Evoker, Cleric, and a buffed up dual weapon weilding combat Ranger. They did do a little more damage but in the end thier broken lifeless bodies littererd the same battleground.

Granted ,the dice rolls of the players were uniformly unspectacular that entire evening, which is hard on any level character, but particuarly for 1st levelers. But after 4 attempts we all found the play to be frustrating. One player was very disgusted that the scenario called for a CR2 creature to fight a level 1 party... but according to the rules this is supposed to be playable.

Any observations?

There are two things wrong with the test conducted:
1) You didn't use the 'standard' 4 characters the system is designed for. You used a ranger,druid, rogue, diviner. It should have been a fighter, cleric, rogue, non-specialized wizard.
2) You used a third party module that used a under CR'd creature for the first encounter. As others have stated, there is a good reason the ogre was moved to CR 3 in 3.5.

If you had used the standard 4 I mentioned above, and they fought 4 orc warriors or 2 gnolls, the results should be more satisfactory. Of course, none of this can account for bad luck.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's possible there was.

For example, it may be the case that the cave penalizes size Large creatures when they use their weapons, rather than penalizing Large (3.0e) weapons. If that was the case (and we remove the OP-added missile weapon penalty), then the terrain gives the ogre a distinct disadvantage.

The OP claimed that the terrain gave the ogre a disadvantage. I am inclined to accept that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's interesting to compare the two. Do you have the 3.5e MM, RC? If you do, have a look at the appendices on creating & advancing monsters and determining CR.

No. I had just switched to 3.0 when 3.5 came out.

The old monster-level system involved no guesswork in getting the XP value or determining the "monster level" of a monster. However, it then failed to actually correlate how dangerous a monster was with its XP value. It's my basic problem with point-buy systems: they're blind to the combinations created. No judgement is used.

I disagree. The 1e XP/ML system did indeed suggest that the DM take such things into account. An examination of the XP values in the 1e DMG will demonstrate that this was done when determining official XP values.

Returning to this quote, I do agree with this. Monte Cook is curiously silent in the DMG about what the basis used for the CR judgements, despite many 'Behind the Curtain' insights.

Making this explicit would do much to increase the value of the system (and make adjusting it far simpler) IMHO.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ok, looking at the preview we see that this encounter is completely unavoidable. There's simply no way around (assuming those routes to the east don't lead outside). Also note, by the text of the module, fighting in room 1 does NOT incur the -2 penalty for terrain.

So, if the PCs camp outside the caves, they can't just wait until the ogre starves to death?

(I don't have a lot of sympathy for DMs who tell the players they can't try something because it isn't in the adventure text.)

 

[gizmo33]

I disagree. The 1e XP/ML system did indeed suggest that the DM take such things into account. An examination of the XP values in the 1e DMG will demonstrate that this was done when determining official XP values.

Well, I think then that the only real benefit that the 1e system has over the 3e system is it's granularity (if it's worth it) - there's still no way that I can see that the 1e system would have automatically detected the fact that a creature doing 2d8+7 damage should not be a level 2 monster. AFAICT that would have involved the same judgement call that the 3E situation requires.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, I think then that the only real benefit that the 1e system has over the 3e system is it's granularity (if it's worth it) - there's still no way that I can see that the 1e system would have automatically detected the fact that a creature doing 2d8+7 damage should not be a level 2 monster. AFAICT that would have involved the same judgement call that the 3E situation requires.

Significant damage was one of the factors determining XP in 1e. Not sure what the thresholds were off the top of my head, but an attack capable of doing 25 points of damage probably hit the mark. It might be interesting to pull out the 1e DMG, and caluclate a 3e ogre's XP and ML for comparison.

 

[gizmo33]

Significant damage was one of the factors determining XP in 1e. Not sure what the thresholds were off the top of my head, but an attack capable of doing 25 points of damage probably hit the mark. It might be interesting to pull out the 1e DMG, and caluclate a 3e ogre's XP and ML for comparison.

All I remember are "special" and "extraordinary" powers, each being worth a certain bonus XP based on the creature's raw HD. There were a few examples of each type of extra power given. I don't remember guidelines about combinations - in fact I don't remember even a warning that multiple special abilities might not stack in terms of creature power. I recall nothing about minimum damage in terms of actual numbers (25 would have been very high by 1e standards). Finally, I recall certain creatures that were way over-valued for their XP - the dretch being the notorious example IMC.

Mountain dwarves, IIRC, were another example - worth 120 xp on the average while an orc was worth a measily 15 xp. (I think that's a 2e example)

Basically, I don't recall the 1e XP system being nearly as well thought out as it seems you're suggesting - and if it were I wonder why it wasn't adopted for 3e (or even 2e).

 

[jdrakeh]

I recall negative reviews of this module because of the Ogre encounter. The math was bad (in both the 3.0 MM and the module), IIRC.